Site Supporter

And I'm going to get sick to the point of hurling if I hear one Christian complain about this or get "offended" or talk about how "bad" our nation is

Where was the church on the Wednesday night and the Thursday night prior to the vote that we all knew was coming?

Where was the church on the Sunday before this vote?

Were the church houses bursting at the seams to overflow with God's people praying our hearts out - crying out to God to save us and deliver us? Was the church confessing it's OWN sins out to God in mass corporate prayer? Was the church seeking God as a body and bride?

No.

The church was on vacation. Playing t-ball. Bowling. At the movies. Making dinner. Watching TV. Reading mystery novels. Sleeping. Buying groceries. Writing love letters. Living out our normal secular routine.

Site Supporter

So the BIG Elephant in the room is can they threaten jail or sew Pastors now?

Click to expand...

Exactly. If a pastor refuses to marry a same-s3x couple, is that pastor denying them their civil rights? Either way, I think I'm done marrying people. Take your piece of paper that was issued by the State and ask an agent of the State to marry you.

Site Supporter

Now we need a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is only one man and one woman.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure even that would do it now. There were states that put into their constitutions that marriage was between one man and one woman, and the 10th amendment should have upheld those but the SCOTUS over through that. Of course the 10th amendment has been ignored by liberals and the SCOTUS for years now.

Site Supporter

Okay, it sounds like many people here are assuming that the government can force a pastor to marry same-gender couples. That is unlikely since the government does not require pastors to marry anyone. Moreover, the First Amendment still exists.

For the sake of helpful and honest discussion, I have quickly reviewed the Court decision and the dissenting opinions and have pulled out relevant sections regarding religious liberty concerns. Please note, I have removed some of the citations from the quotes to improve readability:

From the majority opinion which has the force of law (page 27):

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same- sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

Click to expand...

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Alito (pages 27-28):

“Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same- sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Click to expand...

From the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas (pages 14-16):

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.

The history of religious liberty in our country is familiar: Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking freedom to practice their religion without restraint. When they arrived, they created their own havens for religious practice. Many of these havens were initially homogenous communities with established religions. By the 1780’s, however, “America was in the wake of a great religious revival” marked by a move toward free exercise of religion. Every State save Connecticut adopted protections for religious freedom in their State Constitutions by 1789, and, of course, the First Amendment enshrined protection for the free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution. But that protection was far from the last word on religious liberty in this country, as the Federal Government and the States have reaffirmed their commitment to religious liberty by codifying protections for religious practice.

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents man- date. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

Site Supporter

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP) -- The current and 16 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents released a statement on biblical marriage and the national implications of same-sex marriage in a June 17 news conference prior to the concluding sessions of the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

SBC President Ronnie Floyd moderated the news conference, attended by eight of the former presidents.

The full statement follows:

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God's Truth as central to our lives.

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures' teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex "marriages", our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God's design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God's design for life and relationships. As the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God's Word.

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

Site Supporter

I do wonder what kind of Pandora box the SCOTUS has just opened up. By declaring marriage a fundamental Right, there will not be liberals who will say that it is the governments job to make marriage happen if a person wants. So what happens if person A ask person B to marry them and person B says no, could not person A argue that person B is denying them their right to marriage. Liberals are crazy when it comes to their perceived Rights.

So the BIG Elephant in the room is can they threaten jail or sew Pastors now?

Click to expand...

According to what I have found it says in an article:

Friday’s ruling also could have a big effect on religious institutions that have maintained their opposition to same-sex marriage. Religious schools that refuse to provide housing for same-sex couples could face lawsuits and lose their tax-exempt status, for example. (Religious clergy will not have to marry same-sex couples, however.) Some states will most likely respond to this ruling by attempting to pass legislation to exempt people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, such as the controversial Indiana law that passed in March.